Open, evidence-based government


  • RSS
  • Cite
Submitted By
Brooke Struck
Votes: 83

The challenges of evidence-based policy-making are more than just challenges of producing evidence ( The use of evidence in policy-making is very powerful, and entails a profound shift in the way that we make decisions and engage various stakeholders.

Acknowledging this, the UK’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been developing and implementing strategies aimed specifically at the use of evidence for years; they are already on their third iteration ( Thought leaders in evidence-based decision-making, such as Justin Parkhurst and Louise Shaxson, have written extensively about the institutional changes involved in shifting towards a culture of evidence-based decision-making in government.

Evidence-based decision-making is deeply intertwined with Open and transparent government. Stakeholders need to be engaged in defining project goals & mechanisms, selecting relevant indicators, and reviewing the consideration of evidence for decisions. Evidence starts a conversation, it doesn’t end it.

If Canada wants to lead in open, evidence-based government, there is considerable opportunity to learn from the experiences of others. But we need to get past the idea that the challenge of using evidence in government is primarily a challenge of supply.


Add new comment

Rules of Engagement

We look forward to hearing from you. Your ideas and feedback are central to the development of both the Open Government portal and the Government of Canada’s approach to Open Government.

While comments are moderated, the portal will not censor any comments except in a few specific cases, listed below. Accounts acting contrary to these rules may be temporarily or permanently disabled.

Comments and Interaction

Our team will read comments and participate in discussions when appropriate. Your comments and contributions must be relevant and respectful.

Our team will not engage in partisan or political issues or respond to questions that violate these Terms and Conditions.

Our team reserves the right to remove comments and contributions, and to block users based on the following criteria:

The comments or contributions:

  • include personal, protected or classified information of the Government of Canada or infringes upon intellectual property or proprietary rights
  • are contrary to the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982
  • are racist, hateful, sexist, homophobic or defamatory, or contain or refer to any obscenity or pornography
  • are threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing
  • are contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
  • constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
  • encourage or incite any criminal activity
  • are written in a language other than English or French
  • otherwise violate this notice

Our team cannot commit to replying to every message or comment, but we look forward to continuing the conversation whenever possible. Please note that responses will be provided in the same language that was used in the original comment.

Our team will reply to comments in the official language in which they are posted. If we determine the response is a question of general public interest, we will respond in both official languages.


Submitted by Anonymous on August 23, 2022 - 2:52 AM

If there is any truth behind the evidence-based policy-making, the first step is for the government to stop forcing its employees to go to the office, amid a COVID wave and emergency room closure. If the government doesn't apply evidence to internal decisions regarding staff safety, it is hardly believable that the government commits to evidence at all.

Submitted by bev kennedy on March 22, 2018 - 9:29 PM

This is not open nor transparent nor responsible government. All it does is lighten the government's expenses. But does little to ensure the publics legal rights are protected. Especially in big ticket consumer items like retirement savings for those nest eggs to top up social income streams like CPP and OAS. The funded by industry ombudsman and sros have their own agendas This culture of reliance transfers oversight as well from the crown to vest interests in the energy environment tug of war. Taxpayers and voters have been deceived by this behind the scenes she'll game and buck passing to big corporate entities.